DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 12/08/2025. Presently, claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method incorporating timing sensitive logic and data synchronization for a distributed wagering system (certain methods of organizing human activity), the method comprising: receiving via a communication circuit, from a first user of a plurality of users, a wager on an event, the wager including a total wager amount (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity); responsive to receiving the wager, executing (certain methods of organizing human activity), by at least one processor, a distributed transaction process incorporating multiple systems, including: determining via the at least one processor (i) a first portion of the total wager amount as a book wager between the first user and a book (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity); (ii) a second wager a portion of the total wager amount as a pool wager between the book and a pool, wherein the book and pool are implemented as book and pool systems respectively (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity); concurrently transmitting with less than a threshold time delay, via two transmission executed by the communication circuit the first portion to the book system and the second portion to the pool system, to cause synchronized formation of the book and pool wagers on the book and pool systems, respectively (certain methods of organizing human activity and/or extra solution activity)and setting and maintaining the wager in an irrevocable locked data-state during the concurrently transmitting, such that the irrevocable locked data-state is maintained until a predetermined release condition is detected (certain methods of organizing human activity) wherein finalization of the book wager is delayed until receiving, by the book, a transmission indicating finalization of odds by the pool system for the pool wager, so that the book and pool systems have matching odds for the wager (certain methods of organizing human activity), and wherein the predetermined release condition is met by the communication circuit receiving the transmission from the pool system indicating the finalization of the odds (certain methods of organizing human activity); and resolving (i) the book wager and the pool wager based on an outcome of the event and (ii) when the outcome is a win, calculating via the at least one processor a payment proportion to the odds of the pool wager and the first portion of the total wager amount in the book wager (mental process; certain methods of organizing human activity). Here each of these steps listed as a mental process could be done in the mind or using pen and paper because a user could determine the wager according to portions and then set the odds of the book wager to match those of the pool. The claims above are found to also be certain methods of organizing human activity because each of the above elements are set as rules for managing a wagering game which as noted in the MPEP is considered to be an abstract idea (See 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) and in particular, (ii)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are, at best, just applied to a generic computing environment that is the claims are just applied to a generic processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements is a processor found only in the preamble to the claim and this additional elements is only generic computing components which the Supreme Court in Alice determined is not sufficient to bring claims into patent eligibility.
All dependent claims have been analyzed but they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant traverses the rejection based upon 35 USC 101. Applicant begins their argument by stating, that the characterization done by the Office “oversimplifies the claims and overlooks the technical nature of the problem being solved, and the technical nature of the resolution,” (Arguments, pages 6-7). Applicant makes arguments as to why they believe that their claims are technical rather than rules for a game (Arguments, pages 7-8), but these arguments are not found to be convincing merely Applicant trying various options to overcome a rejection rather than a technical problem actually being recognized at the time of the invention.
Applicant then argues that the claims are significantly more than the abstract idea by providing reasons for why Applicant believes that the invention is related to a technical problem and not merely just rules for managing a wagering game (Arguments, pages 8-10). One of Applicant’s arguments is “due to network latency or the pool system’s own latency in processing the pool system’s final odds may change…,” (Arguments, page 8). However, the word “latency” never appears once in Applicant’s original specification. If Applicant had noticed such a significant technical problem and that this present invention is addressing it, why would latency never once be mentioned in the specification but rather only in response to a rejection? Furthermore, if such were the actual invention of the Application. Furthermore, Applicant also argues the crucialness of data “integrity.” However, similarly to “latency,” “integrity” is never used once in the originally filed specification. While it is understood that Applicant may use different wording within their specification, these words are so distinct and clear in the computer arts that if these were the technical problem they would be expected to be used in recognizing the problem and then addressing it rather than just arguments alone. As such, it appears that Applicant’s representative is attempting to find a technical solution to a technical problem that was never actually written in the specification. Furthermore, as noted above each of the elements that Applicant is trying to rely upon to be the technical solution appear to still be parts of managing a wagering game and as such fall within an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights